What is wrong with socialism?

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I hear a lot of people saying "oh no, Obama isn't a socialist" or "this country isn't becoming socialist....". Well......what's so wrong if it does? Is it just the negative stigma of things?

I am personally against it, but want to hear from others.

From Wikipedia:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society

and for the dumbasses like me that didn't know what egalitarian is:

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals, and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed above, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference.

 

[Minstrel]

I hear a lot of people saying "oh no, Obama isn't a socialist" or "this country isn't becoming socialist....". Well......what's so wrong if it does? Is it just the negative stigma of things?

Pure socialism is a bad thing, just as pure capitalism is. They both have fairly massiv drawbacks when taken to an extreme. Both have been judged necessary in functioning democracies.

You'd have to define your terms, when you call Obama a "socialist." Almost everyone in this country believes in some amount of socialism. So at what point do you turn into a "socialist?"

 

[PapaG]

You are expanding on my earlier post where I noted that "socialist" is seen as a pejorative in the US, but that if you don't view it as such, what is good/bad about the merits of this ideology?

 

[PapaG]

Pure socialism is a bad thing, just as pure capitalism is. They both have fairly massiv drawbacks when taken to an extreme. Both have been judged necessary in functioning democracies.

You'd have to define your terms, when you call Obama a "socialist." Almost everyone in this country believes in some amount of socialism. So at what point do you turn into a "socialist?"

"We have to spread the wealth."

Note he didn't say "create more wealth".

A fundamental difference, and a sliding scale doesn't work in this instance.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Pure socialism is a bad thing, just as pure capitalism is. They both have fairly massiv drawbacks when taken to an extreme. Both have been judged necessary in functioning democracies.

You'd have to define your terms, when you call Obama a "socialist." Almost everyone in this country believes in some amount of socialism. So at what point do you turn into a "socialist?"

I believe he wants to redistribute wealth. Have government take care of the population as a whole. More government involvement in people's lives. Increase of social programs to "even the playing field" so everyone is more or less part of the proletariat.

 

[PapaG]

I believe he wants to redistribute wealth. Have government take care of the population as a whole. More government involvement in people's lives. Increase of social programs to "even the playing field" so everyone is more or less part of the proletariat.

The long-term goal is to keep the ruling class in power through financial control.

We are entering interesting times. It's easy to assume that McCain or Obama have our best interest at heart; I happen to think politicians are like CEOs except with unlimited power.

 

[Minstrel]

"We have to spread the wealth."

Note he didn't say "create more wealth".

A fundamental difference

Disagreement on that, you can do both. No one says "We have to create more wealth," because it's obvious. It's akin to saying, "We need to not be nuked" as a part of your national defense strategy. It's a bit obvious, so it doesn't need to be said and never is.

 

[Minstrel]

I believe he wants to redistribute wealth. Have government take care of the population as a whole. More government involvement in people's lives. Increase of social programs to "even the playing field" so everyone is more or less part of the proletariat.

All of this is done by both parties and the vast majority of the population want some amount of all of this. So again, at one point do you shift into being a "socialist?"

 

[Денг Гордон]

The argument against Socialism is that free market economics will give you the most efficient economy possible. But you also have to take into account equity. Taking care of your people with things like health care are hits we should be taking to the efficiency of the economy to improve the well-being of our people.

I don't think anyone is arguing for 100% socialism, which has proven to be ineffective. (In theory, it could work, but human greed will always get in the way from making it work).

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

All of this is done by both parties and the vast majority of the population want some amount of all of this. So again, at one point do you shift into being a "socialist?"

When you favor the redistribution of wealth. The robin hood mentality.

 

[Денг Гордон]

When you favor the redistribution of wealth. The robin hood mentality.

The Jesus mentality.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

The Jesus mentality.

exactly.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I am unsure as to why people who are, in essence, supporting socialism stray away from that monniker, when it is quite accurate.

 

[PapaG]

Disagreement on that, you can do both. No one says "We have to create more wealth," because it's obvious. It's akin to saying, "We need to not be nuked" as a part of your national defense strategy. It's a bit obvious, so it doesn't need to be said and never is.

I disagree. It isn't obvious when you look at the classic theories and writings of Marx and Proudhon.

Or Alinsky, for that matter.

 

[PapaG]

I am unsure as to why people who are, in essence, supporting socialism stray away from that monniker, when it is quite accurate.

I wonder the same thing.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

I wonder the same thing.

they should be embracing it, renouncing capitalism.

 

[PapaG]

When you favor the redistribution of wealth. The robin hood mentality.

Robin Hood had it right, however.

He took from the governement and gave the money back to the people. Robin Hood was an "elite", remember? The Sheriff of Nottingham was corrupt and all of the people were suffering, regardless of income.

Sounds familiar...

 

[Minstrel]

When you favor the redistribution of wealth. The robin hood mentality.

Okay. So every US politician is a socialist and most of the US population. Good enough.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Okay. So every US politician is a socialist and most of the US population. Good enough.

Yes. Its good for the masses.

I don't see why we just call a spade a spade, and they embrace socialism.

 

[Денг Гордон]

they should be embracing it, renouncing capitalism.

Some of us like capitalism, but believe we have a moral obligation to provide something like health care to every citizen. A mix of Capitalism/Socialism so to speak.

People are too greedy. If you are making $250K a year, you are well off. Will it really be the worst thing in the world if you were taxed a bit more, which would minimally effect your life, while making things easier on those who actually need tax breaks?

I think Tyson Chandler said it best:

"But you know what, it's a bigger cause. And the way I look at it is that I can afford to pay more in taxes. But my parents, my grandparents, my cousins ... with what they make, they can't afford to cut back in their household with what they're trying to survive with. I can afford to make cuts and still survive. They can't take that knock.

I think that's what's going on now and the reason why the middle class is struggling so much. The upper class, we can take that hit. Obviously, nobody wants to take it, but we still can. And we can afford to live nice lives.

I've lived in both situations. And not only that, I'm obviously the only one in my family that can say that I'm a millionaire. I've seen my entire family struggle. So, would I rather see my whole family struggle while I get a break, or have me not get a break while the rest of my family gets one? I'll take my entire family getting a break."

 

[PapaG]

Okay. So every US politician is a socialist and most of the US population. Good enough.

Well, not all, but if you think so, why not call yourself a socialist?

I am a capitalist, and I have no problem saying so.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, not all

Almost all. Certainly all in the Republican and Democratic parties. They all believe in some amount of taxation and some amount of social programs.

but if you think so, why not call yourself a socialist?

Because that's not my definition of "socialist." That's Xericx's definition. I was simply noting that it applies to most people in the US. Obama is not unusual in that regard.

I am a capitalist, and I have no problem saying so.

I'm happy for you. Since I believe in a mix of capitalism and socialism, I find it meaningless to call myself either one.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

Some of us like capitalism, but believe we have a moral obligation to provide something like health care to every citizen. A mix of Capitalism/Socialism so to speak.

People are too greedy. If you are making $250K a year, you are well off. Will it really be the worst thing in the world if you were taxed a bit more, which would minimally effect your life, while making things easier on those who actually need tax breaks?

I think Tyson Chandler said it best:

"But you know what, it's a bigger cause. And the way I look at it is that I can afford to pay more in taxes. But my parents, my grandparents, my cousins ... with what they make, they can't afford to cut back in their household with what they're trying to survive with. I can afford to make cuts and still survive. They can't take that knock.

I think that's what's going on now and the reason why the middle class is struggling so much. The upper class, we can take that hit. Obviously, nobody wants to take it, but we still can. And we can afford to live nice lives.

I've lived in both situations. And not only that, I'm obviously the only one in my family that can say that I'm a millionaire. I've seen my entire family struggle. So, would I rather see my whole family struggle while I get a break, or have me not get a break while the rest of my family gets one? I'll take my entire family getting a break."

Greed is good. Greed motivates.

Moral obligations should be voluntary, not mandated by government without choice. That's why they are MORAL obligations. I believe in a fair and just system of economic freedom. When you do well, you should not be punished for succeeding. There should also be motivation for one to escape the middle class. Its doable for many, but when one is given handouts, it becomes less motivating to do so.

 

[Денг Гордон]

So you think only the rich deserve to be healthy? We're not talking about giving everyone a Cadillac. We're talking about giving them their health.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So you think only the rich deserve to be healthy? We're not talking about giving everyone a Cadillac. We're talking about giving them their health.

What was the recent stimulus package? Giving poor people plasma TVs.

 

[PapaG]

Because that's not my definition of "socialist." That's Xericx's definition. I was simply noting that it applies to most people in the US. Obama is not unusual in that regard..

Actually, that is the real definition. "Your" defintion is an opinion. Don't forget the Fannie/Freddie aspect to all of this.

http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

So you think only the rich deserve to be healthy?

Not at all. Healthcare should be affordable, but not government mandated or controlled.

 

[PapaG]

So you think only the rich deserve to be healthy? We're not talking about giving everyone a Cadillac. We're talking about giving them their health.

Anybody can go for a run.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Not at all. Healthcare should be affordable, but not government mandated or controlled.

But it's not affordable, and even when people do have health care, the insurance company just tells them no, we're not covering you. These people can't do anything when the insurance company does that, because they're so in cahoots with the government. Obama is actually willing to take on the health industry by the horns. We need a president to do that. Let's be honest, health care is shitty right now, let's give the thing that has been said to be so bad a chance (given that the "good" alternative the republicans keep talking about fails time and time again).

Obama knows what's up.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Minstrel]

I believe in a fair and just system of economic freedom. When you do well, you should not be punished for succeeding.

I don't consider taxing richer people a higher percentage to be fundamentally unfair. In capitalism, wealth creates more opportuniies to make more wealth...not in a linear fashion, but in an exponential fashion. This is enabled by society. Without the society, even the best businessman/woman wouldn't make a dime. This opportunity that society affords people (which escalates with wealth) isn't free. The cost is taxation, higher rates with greater wealth to account for the non-linearly greater opportunity society affords greater wealth. If it were linear, then a flat tax would make sense.